Sharks, masturbation and money
As you may have heard, Damien Hirst had a sale at Sotheby’s in September, 2008 called “Beautiful Inside My Head Forever” at which he grossed USD 200.7 million. (This occurred the very same day that Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy was announced.) This is a fascinating development in art markets since it is the first widely recognized, living artist to bypass the gallery system in favor of selling his work directly through an auction house. Peter Levin and I have spent a substantial amount of time talking about the consequences of this, some of which might interest you Orgies.
As you may know, in the contemporary art world, sales are divided among a “primary” market, wherein gallery owners sell works by artists in a system of curated “shows,” and a “secondary” or resale market, wherein auction houses sell works on consignment to collectors and speculators.
The organizational logics of the primary and secondary markets for art are a study in contrast. The covert marketing and private nature of sales in the primary market serve to protect the artist from market volatility and from the contaminating effects pecuniary interests often have on artistic legitimacy. Artists, gallery owners and collectors work together to build reputation and value: prices for the same work may depend upon the buyer (with lower costs to museums), and works are doled out to buyers according to a “waiting list” held by gallery owners. It is not uncommon for gallery owners to ask collectors to honor ‘right to repurchase’ agreements to keep artists’ work under their control. By contrast, pricing at auctions is public (even if a buyer’s identity is not), and while dependent to some degree on estimates set by auction house art experts, auction prices are highly volatile and subject to the vicissitudes of supply and demand. The goal of profit maximization is met by the aggressive, open marketing efforts of auction houses, which pass along profit to collectors, but rarely to artists.
So, what are the consequences, if Hirst’s sale is the shark in the mines, indicating the death of this divide?
- First, such a shift will open the market for works to a new set of collectors, because it would obviate the gallery owners’ discretion over “wait lists” for new works. Sotheby’s reported that 22% of buyers at Hirst’s auction were new to Sotheby’s, 91% were purchasing their first work by the artist, and the report suggests many new buyers live in Russia, the Gulf States and Asia, especially India. Auctions can function as a “back-door opportunity” to acquire art works. Hirst said in an interview, “It’s a very democratic way to sell art and it feels like a natural evolution for contemporary art. Although there is risk involved, I embrace the challenge of selling my work in this way”.
- Second, if more artists sell works directly through auction houses, then more of them will experience market volatility and will share more equally in the profits, or losses, that are the result of participation.
- A cynical interpretation of Hirst’s sale, and the purported democracy it brings to the art market, is that at least some purchases were made with Russian petro-dollars, by financial elites seeking to acquire culturally legitimate indicators of wealth.
- Critics of Hirst’s sale have a more pessimistic view. For example, gallery owner and art critic Edward Winkleman is concerned that the “art of our time” will be selected not by art historians, museum buyers, gallery owners and critics, but by profit-oriented businesspeople. He hypothesizes that the art that sells best is not necessarily that with “integrity”. By turning away from the primary art market, and losing the public service performed by galleries that produce “risk-taking exhibitions” and which are “artist-centric (as opposed to market-centric)”, then we will have “lost just that little bit more of soul in the art world.”
However, the artists most likely to breach this divide are those whose art itself is about the seemingly insurmountable gulf between culture and market. A number of artists have explicitly played with the relationship between art-as-culture and art-market-as-money. Hirst is one of these artists; Japanese artist Murakami explicitly sets out to investigate (or glorify, or take advantage of) an obsessively consumerist culture. Andy Warhol did the same, exploiting the public’s revulsion when conventions of art are contested, even mocked. These are artists for whom the medium of exchange is an aesthetic element of composition, and so the moment of exchange can be artistic, as well.
It may simply be the case, [like Podolny say] that there is more flexibility for those at the top of contemporary art’s status hierarchy to make novel claims on the rules around its production and distribution. Even if that is the case, how interesting that they make these claims just as the stage was set for our current Global Financial Crisis…
1. The title made me do a spit take. Thought it was about a seedy aquarium themed escort service…
2. On a different note, I liked this post, and I think it is more about the Podolny point about elites who can make and break rules. I think what Winkleman fails to realize is that there a strange level of consensus around elite art. No one, for example, disputes that Warhol is seminal. The money goes there because people seem to like it. It’s also the case that the stars of one era quickly fade. Who, for example, would argue that Richard Prince’s Night Nurse series, or Currin’s intentionally bad art, will be remembered in the same breath as Anselm Kiefer? Didn’t think so.
I think the bigger point about the breakdown of the gallery/auction system is overhyped. Basically, artists need promoters because they can’t do it themselves. And since this is a very fundamental feature of this market, it’s not going away because of Damien Hirst or a recession. As a small time collector/art fan, I haven’t seen this structure disappear among the galleries that handle high quality emerging or mid career art. It’s only the stars who can live without it.
fabiorojas
November 20, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Great, now we have a whole new set of word combinations that will lead googlers to orgtheory, “sharks + masturbation,” “sharks + orgies”…. The googlers will be disappointed to see that this post has nothing to do with Led Zeppelin.
This is a really complicated issue. I’m not sure that it’s the case that status facilitates boundary spanning in the art world. Many artists that mix commercial art forms with “serious” art are at first perceived as fakers. Warhol certainly didn’t start out as a high status artist; in fact, you might be able to say that it was his uniqueness and ability to market his art that created his status position. The status argument would be more believable if Warhol had begun more conventionally and then shifted to boundary spanning after he’d secured a high status position. So is status endogenous or exogenous to the boundary spanning success? I’m not really sure.
brayden
November 21, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Fabio: Warhol + seminal = (second) spit take. I think we can be a little more careful when talking about “the stars of one era quickly fad[ing]“, in the shadow of good, longitudinal research on artistic reputation (I particularly like the Lang and Lang study of painter-etchers). There are a set of strategies that can increase the odds of career longevity; if memory serves, none of the explanations rely on “objective quality” of works.
Sorry about that, Brayden–it actually didn’t cross my mind. I was so chuffed about the implicit criticism of modern art in the title that I ignored its other consequences. I should know better, based on all the “beaver” traffic I get at WITW.
…I agree it is a complicated issue, but I’m not yet convinced that your claims are correct. I think that many artists that mix commercial and “serious” forms are taken seriously without being seen as “fakers.” Of course, this is why I mentioned Murakami. Moreover, I’m not sure the distinction between “commercial” and “serious” obtains for most collectors or artists. Also, I’m a little confused about your note on Warhol, who began his career (after finishing art school at Carnegie Mellon) as a shoe illustrator for advertisements and cover art producer for vinyl albums.
That still leaves an interesting question about the relationship of status to boundary spanning, but I think we need more compelling data for the exogenous argument…
Jenn Lena
November 21, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Jenn: A quick response -
1. My claim of Warhol’s seminal nature isn’t based on my own opinion – I actually don’t like Warhol very much. Far as I can tell, he’s had a huge impact not only on the public (we all recognize his pictures) but also on tons of artists, who’ve copied/appropriated/built on his work.
2. Can you summarize L&L? I haven’t read that one, but if L&L meant technical skill, then it is easy for me to believe. There are tons of outstanding oil painters from the 19th century that no one care about anymore, but who were *huge*. However, I can believe that being innovative in some sense correlates with longevity and I’d mark that as “objective.” Picasso, the Ab Ex’es, etc were innovators and that helps with the reputation. Is that in the L&L study?
Fabio Rojas
November 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm
My own favorite implication around the Warhol/Hirst/Murakami triumvirate is that the thinking that began with Becker’s Art World suggests that changes in AW->changes in art produced. Change the AW, change the art. But the impetus and ability of Hirst, Warhol, and (potentially) Murakami to change the AW stems only in part from their status. It also stems from the content of their art, or at least their self-reported philosophies of artistic creation. That their works are explicitly about commercialization and consumer culture give them additional leverage with the art/commerce divide. Sure, if they were lower status we wouldn’t be as interested. But there are high status artists who play with the art/commerce divide and either have their art get ‘burned’ or culturally devalued.
IMHO, the implication that art->changes in AW suggests a more dialectical relationship between art and art institutions that deserves to be re-opened after 25 years of (then provocative but now) conventional wisdom from Becker…
Peter
November 21, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Fabio: Thanks for the questions. First, I think Warhol’s reputation is pretty much beyond dispute. I was snickering at using the word “seminal” in connection with a homosexual man, in a post with “masturbation” in the title. Sophomoric, perhaps, but that’s the seat of my charm.
I haven’t read the Lang and Lang in a while, but here’s my memory: The conventional theory is that art that lasts is that which touches upon some universal psychological or experiential phenomena. But some art works last because they are historically important, not because they have a high reputation or are largely appreciated. Art worlds systematically fail to recognize naïve or folk artists, even if their work’s quality and importance is comparable to that of the integrated professionals. So…Lang and Lang argue that survival in collective memory is tied to:
1. The artist’s own efforts during his or her life to preserve that reputation by producing a critical mass of work, keeping adequate records to guarantee its proper attribution and making arrangements for its proper custodianship. There is a real gender dimension here—women denying their own best interests (by neglecting these actions) but seeking to preserve the work of their male colleagues.
2. The existence of survivors with a stake in preserving or enhancing the artist’s reputation: marital and family status affect this (married people are more likely to survive). Those who live a long life have a greater change of survival, because they have more time to achieve renown. However, if you outlive your peers, there is no one to organize the memorial—this partly explains why women are less likely to be renown. But those struck down in tragedies may leave behind bereaved who need a memorial even if the oeuvre is relatively unremarkable.
3. Links to networks facilitating access to cultural archives. The Satellite Effect of having a famous mentor or following a style can limit the rise of an art worker, but may convert into an advantage. Proximity to an elite (especially a relative who is a famous artist, a tie to a literary circle, or working for another artist) provides cultural capital and connection that expedite renown.
4. Retrospective interest (linked to emerging political or cultural identities) that leads to a rediscovery of the artist. Geographical position (a regional specialist) or historical coincidence (depicting “famous” figures) can draw attention to certain artists. Art can be made to serve larger cultural or political identities or interests by depicting injustice, suffering, and human foibles.
Jenn Lena
November 21, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I agree that the issue of “fakers” exists but I don’t think it has much at all to do with mixing commercial and fine art. For instance, Thomas Kincade and Leroy Nieman aren’t widely seen as “fake” (or if they are the accusation means “middlebrow” not “con artist”). On the other hand, Duchamp was widely seen as “fake” even though he was entirely in the fine art market. Galenson argues (and I think he’s right) that the “fake” reaction is usually something we have about art that places the concept over the execution. Hirst is the ideal-typical case for this as he is entirely about concept and delegates craft to hired technicians AND many people (myself included) see his popularity as an emperor’s new clothes kind of thing.
Galenson, David. 2006. “You Cannot Be Serious: The Conceptual Innovator as Trickster” NBER working paper series (# w12599).
Also see my lecture on Galenson in the second half of my Monday of week 6 lecture for my soc of mass comm class.
Gabriel Rossman
November 21, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Gabriel, maybe the word is not fakers but ’sell-out’ that gets at the point (though that epitaph is usually reserved for the music business). And I would suggest that some artists who are decent but interested in money get tagged here. As Velthuis writes about Julian Schnabel:
I guess I don’t see it as particularly problematic to claim that artists who get seen as in it for the money have a history of getting dinged for it. Fakers, sell-outs, whatever. And Robert Hughes will never say that Schnabel’s work is good but he’s in it for the money; he’ll slap at cultural merits of the art. Why Murakami (who pitches branded keychains, soccer balls, and other schlock as well as anime masturbaters) largely maintains a good high-end reputation is something of a mystery in this regard, no?
Peter
November 21, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Jenn: OK, I’m late to this post — clicked to read the full post, and whoa!, of all the possible topics (and particularly, illustrations) that you could use to highlight your point, you go with that Murakami theme…hmm. And, as Brayden said — we’re likely to now (with the post and with poor readers being named “orgies”) get all kinds of “sickies” traffic (in addition to the ferret traffic that we’ve already got).
tf
November 22, 2008 at 3:16 am
Jenn: In orgtalk, we call it “birthin’ the ferret.”
fabiorojas
November 22, 2008 at 3:18 am
Peter,
There are several different dimensions to authenticity and we have each identified one of them. In Creating Country Music Pete lists something like six definitions of authenticity and we could imagine (at least) one corresponding accusation of inauthenticity. I agree that “sell-out” is one, but I think “con artist” or “shock artist” is another, with “derivative” being the direct counterpoint to “shock artist.” For any particular case we might be able to list the specific accusation (or set of accusations) that have been made and I think there has to be a correspondence between the accusations and both the nature of the art and more structural things. Commercializing could lead to accusations of “sellout” or “middlebrow”; strict adherence to convention could lead to accusations of “derivative”; etc.
Gabriel Rossman
November 22, 2008 at 6:58 pm